Bank Changes Discussion Thread

[Cabooze]

indie ranger with 20k isn't going to care one bit, that's like just an extra five minutes of foraging or selling crap to make up for the new fees.

No indie ranger makes 4000 in 5 minutes.  Replace that with 5+ hours, and maybe you're on to something.

Or can they?

[aeglaeca]

It is not a slush fund to be used for your pet projects. 

That is absolutely fine and completely understandable, but in that case, punishing these types of leadership positions for having pet projects with high withdrawal fees is problematic. Pet projects very probably account for things leadership PCs can get done with minimal immortal support. I think other parts of the GDB have alluded to some frustration in certain types of leadership positions, particularly nobles, because there is a lot of red tape and back and forth behind the scenes for getting stuff done.

It seems a little backwards to tack such high fees onto those characters expected to drive RP in part through spending coin, who probably don't have any problems spending their coin as is. I do definitely understand there are IC workarounds, but I also think it would be pretty justifiable for nobility and the like to have reduced fees.

[Kismetic]

Maybe the easiest solution is to just raise stipends 15-25%.  I think that's been discussed before.

I want to add that I don't think GMHs are as much concerned on this front.  My one GMH Agent had spent well over a hundred large in his RL year and a half career, had many larges in assets and personal possessions just laying around that could be liquidated, and still had thirty large in the bank.  And this is accounting for the fact that I often just padded the clan account with my own money to make him look more successful than the competition.  Demonstrating his massive affluence was part of his interaction with the world.  I really, really don't think GMHs will suffer, but someone is free to correct me if I'm wrong.

This mostly hurts the poor nobles who, lol, are really much poorer than they should be.

[Mordiggian]

Stick some coins under your mattress. Make a PC that runs a shady money lending business on the side with reduced fees. Hire the Byn to escort your box filled with the 20,000 coins your spending on that dope new hat to the merchant estate. Start a gang of criminals to prey upon people transporting large sums of money for important transactions.

[Nyr]

Well, I suppose you could look at this as encouraging nobles to be more sensible with their projects

You can still have insensible projects, you just wouldn't have the House backing you specifically with that coin.  If you play a noble with kooky ideas that don't jive with the House, you can be sure to support the House in other ventures as much as they need you to so that they'll direct some kind of reward your way. 

This is also only the first step of a larger set of comprehensive changes we'd like to make.  This was easier to accomplish more quickly, so it is first.  (Sorry, won't be speaking on the rest until it is in place!)

[Is Friday]

It is not a slush fund to be used for your pet projects. 

That is absolutely fine and completely understandable, but in that case, punishing these types of leadership positions for having pet projects with high withdrawal fees is problematic. Pet projects very probably account for things leadership PCs can get done with minimal immortal support. I think other parts of the GDB have alluded to some frustration in certain types of leadership positions, particularly nobles, because there is a lot of red tape and back and forth behind the scenes for getting stuff done.

It seems a little backwards to tack such high fees onto those characters expected to drive RP in part through spending coin, who probably don't have any problems spending their coin as is. I do definitely understand there are IC workarounds, but I also think it would be pretty justifiable for nobility and the like to have reduced fees.

Pretty much my thoughts on it.

[Desertman]

This is also only the first step of a larger set of comprehensive changes we'd like to make.  This was easier to accomplish more quickly, so it is first. 

[AdamBlue]

[complain]
Terrible change! Horrible change. Completely lame attempt to make money have more value!
[/complain]

[Armaddict]

It is not a slush fund to be used for your pet projects.  

That is absolutely fine and completely understandable, but in that case, punishing these types of leadership positions for having pet projects with high withdrawal fees is problematic. Pet projects very probably account for things leadership PCs can get done with minimal immortal support. I think other parts of the GDB have alluded to some frustration in certain types of leadership positions, particularly nobles, because there is a lot of red tape and back and forth behind the scenes for getting stuff done.

It seems a little backwards to tack such high fees onto those characters expected to drive RP in part through spending coin, who probably don't have any problems spending their coin as is. I do definitely understand there are IC workarounds, but I also think it would be pretty justifiable for nobility and the like to have reduced fees.

Actually, this arguably affects nobles the least since they have an entire security force and personal quarters locked away.  Everyone else has to worry about a break in.  Break ins on a noble are very rare.  You walk to the estate, instead of to the bank, is really the big change here, and your coin -is- available for a heist...which is unlikely to happen, but possible.  The mere possibility adds to the game, not detracts.

And while I do empathize with nobles...the 'amount' of coin is not their problem, in my opinion, but the value of the things they can do with it.  The best I could ever come up with was ordering awesome things for my underlings and getting them things -they- wanted in reward.

[James de Monet]

MCB Club:
Latest Member: Nenyuk

Heh, I love this change.  The rates do sound steep (haven't checked for my PC yet), but I think they have to be to make an actual change in the way people play.  I wonder if this will make House Nenyuk PCs more viable (which would be awesome, if it could work).

I do kinda think it would have been good to give people a day or two to set their accounts as desired before this went into effect, but that's for the sake of playability and sticker shock, not for the sake of realism.  I think it's perfectly realistic as is.

Darth Nenyuk: Twenty percent of your coins must never again leave this facility.

Amos: That was never a condition of our arrangement, nor was giving Malik to His Arm!

Darth Nenyuk: (stabbing a finger in his chest) I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.

[Nyr]

This mostly hurts the poor nobles who, lol, are really much poorer than they should be.

How rich should they be, then?  Just curious, because there were changes made to this a year and a half ago.

[aeglaeca]

Maybe the easiest solution is to just raise stipends 15-25%.  I think that's been discussed before.
[...]
This mostly hurts the poor nobles who, lol, are really much poorer than they should be.

This might also work. Just, basically, if your noble is hiring the Byn for a 5k contract and you're getting 2k a RL week, at 20% fees suddenly you'll need a month instead of 3 weeks to be able to pay for it, and that's assuming you make your paydays religiously.

Actually, this arguably affects nobles the least since they have an entire security force and personal quarters locked away.  Everyone else has to worry about a break in.  Break ins on a noble are very rare.  You walk to the estate, instead of to the bank, is really the big change here, and your coin -is- available for a heist...which is unlikely to happen, but possible.  The mere possibility adds to the game, not detracts.

And while I do empathize with nobles...the 'amount' of coin is not their problem, in my opinion, but the value of the things they can do with it.  The best I could ever come up with was ordering awesome things for my underlings and getting them things -they- wanted in reward.

I did mention IC workarounds, which would pretty much be that, but if you're a noble isn't part of your prestige being able to go to the bank? The bank is a relatively central location, after all, where noble estates are decidedly not, with the additional note that the people you're paying are probably going to want to be in the bank so they can immediately deposit their filthy lucre.

[Desertman]

It is not a slush fund to be used for your pet projects.  

That is absolutely fine and completely understandable, but in that case, punishing these types of leadership positions for having pet projects with high withdrawal fees is problematic. Pet projects very probably account for things leadership PCs can get done with minimal immortal support. I think other parts of the GDB have alluded to some frustration in certain types of leadership positions, particularly nobles, because there is a lot of red tape and back and forth behind the scenes for getting stuff done.

It seems a little backwards to tack such high fees onto those characters expected to drive RP in part through spending coin, who probably don't have any problems spending their coin as is. I do definitely understand there are IC workarounds, but I also think it would be pretty justifiable for nobility and the like to have reduced fees.

Actually, this arguably affects nobles the least since they have an entire security force and personal quarters locked away.  Everyone else has to worry about a break in.  Break ins on a noble are very rare.  You walk to the estate, instead of to the bank, is really the big change here, and your coin -is- available for a heist...which is unlikely to happen, but possible.  The mere possibility adds to the game, not detracts.

And while I do empathize with nobles...the 'amount' of coin is not their problem, in my opinion, but the value of the things they can do with it.  The best I could ever come up with was ordering awesome things for my underlings and getting them things -they- wanted in reward.

^^^

Dis mane no waddup.

[wizturbo]

How rich should they be, then?  Just curious, because there were changes made to this a year and a half ago.

Honestly, I don't think the nobles are poor, I think that independent earning power is high merely because they're task based economies.  If performing a certain coded action takes 5 minutes, and earns you 50 coins, that's 600 coins an hour.  In 10 hours, you've got yourself a noble-sized stipend in less than one IC week.  

It's tough to balance though, because having that indie make 600 coins after an hour of play seems totally reasonable from an OOC playability standpoint...I mean we don't want people having to grind for countless hours just to get enough to buy food/water, that doesn't add to the roleplay experience.  But the same indie who plays a lot of hours can become crazy rich...  Capping their income out could help, and creating caps makes sense from an OOC standpoint, but makes no sense from an IC standpoint...  tough nut to crack.

[Desertman]

How rich should they be, then?  Just curious, because there were changes made to this a year and a half ago.

Honestly, I don't think the nobles are poor, I think that independent earning power is high merely because they're task based economies.  If performing a certain coded action takes 5 minutes, and earns you 50 coins, that's 600 coins an hour.  In 10 hours, you've got yourself a noble-sized stipend in less than one IC week.  

It's tough to balance though, because having that indie make 600 coins after an hour of play seems totally reasonable from an OOC playability standpoint...I mean we don't want people having to grind for countless hours just to get enough to buy food/water, that doesn't add to the roleplay experience.  

If people actually do this, they aren't the type of people I have ever played with....and they aren't the type of people who have ever done anything with that money worth mentioning to make me even remember they existed.

I'm fine with Amos the Spam Money Maker doing that, because really....those aren't the types of people who are worth a shit who will ever really affect anything anyways. (To be blunt and maybe a little mean about it towards Amos.)

[Kismetic]

This mostly hurts the poor nobles who, lol, are really much poorer than they should be.

How rich should they be, then?  Just curious, because there were changes made to this a year and a half ago.

You've got me, there.   Since I've never played a House noble.  I would imagine ...  not as wealthy as high level GMH, but comparatively so?  As their gobs of political currency is, itself, priceless.  I'm sure they're not suffering.   

Actually, this arguably affects nobles the least ...

Hey, if you ever need a counter-argument, and RGS isn't available, well, you know.

[James de Monet]

I'm fine with Amos the Spam Money Maker doing that, because really....those aren't the types of people who are worth a shit who will ever really affect anything anyways.

You mean they won't do anything except vastly affect how much the Byn can charge for their time, offset what everyone thinks a reasonable monthly income is, and change the standards of expected luxury for a "successful" character?

[Kismetic]

Pfft, that wasn't even subtle.

[Desertman]

I'm fine with Amos the Spam Money Maker doing that, because really....those aren't the types of people who are worth a shit who will ever really affect anything anyways.

You mean they won't do anything except vastly affect how much the Byn can charge for their time, offset what everyone thinks a reasonable monthly income is, and change the standards of expected luxury for a "successful" character?

What are they doing with all of that money that is changing all of that?

They have a bunch of money in their bank account that they admittedly don't have any outlet to spend it on.

The fact they have a number on an account does nothing to the global economy or the perception of wealth in any way in my opinion.

They can tavern sit all day long, and if that fortune isn't being used to make some sort of meaningful change in some way....they might as well be an NPC.

[wizturbo]

I'm fine with Amos the Spam Money Maker doing that, because really....those aren't the types of people who are worth a shit who will ever really affect anything anyways. (To be blunt and maybe a little mean about it towards Amos.)

I don't think this is entirely fair.  You don't need to be Amos the Spam Money Maker to earn large amounts of coin from activities.  You just have to play a lot of Armageddon.  If someone plays 40 hours a week , and spends 25% of their time doing money making activities, that's hardly being a spammer.  That's actually playing a realistic day job.  If that nets to 10 hours of money making activities a week, at 600/hour....that nets to 6000 coins a week which is huge.

I think people who play 40 hours a week are pretty likely to be worth a shit, and affect things....  I mean, activity definitely makes a big difference in driving plots.

The issue with nobles is that if they play 40 hours a week (which some do) their stipend is identical to the noble that plays 4 hours a week, and they don't have as many task-based activities to generate coin from.  Some nobles make a fortune doing other activities...but they're generally a lot more complicated than pulling the sid-vending machine that some other coded activities provide.


Maybe one way of handling the 'cap' on these activities is to have them pay less sid, but give other things as a reward.  Like a sack of salt might sell for 250 coins now lets say...  instead have it sell for 125 + some loaves of bread, or a waterskin filled with water.   Less direct coin generation, same relative value, but less useful for someone whose performing the activity too regularly.  They'll end up collecting more food/water than they need if they don't take long breaks between salting sessions.  They can try to sell that food or water of course, but that comes with roleplaying involved, or greatly diminished values if sold to an NPC.

[Desertman]

I'm fine with Amos the Spam Money Maker doing that, because really....those aren't the types of people who are worth a shit who will ever really affect anything anyways. (To be blunt and maybe a little mean about it towards Amos.)

I don't think this is entirely fair.  You don't need to be Amos the Spam Money Maker to earn large amounts of coin from activities.  You just have to play a lot of Armageddon.  If I play 40 hours a week, and spend 25% of my time doing money making activities, that's hardly being a spammer.  That's actually playing a realistic day job.

I think people who play 40 hours a week are pretty likely to be worth a shit, and affect things....  I mean, activity definitely makes a big difference in driving plots.

You admit you play A LOT of Armageddon. You put more time into your character in a day than some people do in a few days. You aren't Spam Money Making, you are just LIVING IN ARMAGEDDON and working every single game day which is not what most players do.

You are the exception, you aren't the rule. Not aimed at you.

[wizturbo]

I'd love to see the average playtime statistics for the player base.  I've a feeling that 20 hours a week is a lot more common than people might think.  In which case, if 5 of those hours are spent making money, no wonder indies feel more rich than they should be.

[James de Monet]

Dman, I think we're hypothesizing different levels of "nothing".

But it's not really pertinent to this thread.

[Zoan]

Now the city-state economy makes sense. I always wondered how they stayed afloat financially and now I understand - breaking the backs of the common free folk and waiving the fees of corporations and old money. Just like IRL!

[valeria]

The only time I've had any money in the bank is when I'm a leader saving up to support a plot.  So if the goal is less leaders running expensive plots... I don't know, I'm not against the idea, it just seems like it was implemented backward.